CanOfCorn

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) Rib Cage injuries dont impede you from pinch running. Its swinging that piece of wood real hard that is the issue. The last time he did this he was on the DL for a while. You are assuming he could swing that piece of wood real hard in the first place.

Say uncle! SAY UNCLE!!!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 04:41 PM) I think it's also entirely possible that the Twins putting Santana on the market could up Garland's value also. Think about this hypothetical...the Mets deal like 3 guys, say Humber, Pelfrey, and that Gomez guy in the OF or whatever his name is, 3 top level guys for Johan. That's something entirely plausible on both sides if the Twins decide to move him. Now, what option does the rest of the NL have? As I pointed out a few posts ago...there's not a team in the NL right now that wouldn't have Garland as it's #3 starting pitcher except for maybe the Dodgers, and in many cases he'd be their #2. Teams like the Dodgers, Phillies, Braves, maybe even the D-Backs, etc., might not want to just concede, and to keep up with that kind of deal, they would need pitching. And beyond that, if someone actually gives up young talent for Santana, it could re-encourage teams to start moving young talent for proven vets again, which it seems everyone except the Braves is loathe to do right now (when even the Yankees are holding on to their kids, you know the market has changed) Ah, but if the Mets part with those three players for Santana, then he's no longer on the market. And Garland is a major step down from Santana. Therefore, they may still overpay, but very little.

QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) Nice jinx on the title jason. No one...and I mean NO ONE can give anyone s*** if they have Rick Astley as their avatar.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) And...on top of that...to make sure that we get something of greater value than the 2 draft picks we would get if Jon Garland walked as a FA. It's entirely possible that if he hit the open market, it'd cost us $14-$15 million a year or more to hold onto him, the way the market currently is moving. So, the other thing to look at is...can we hold onto the guy at all? It's not so much...CAN WE? It's more of...SHOULD WE? And don't forget, the market isn't necessarily dictated by an individual's skill. It's dictated by the individual's counterpart's skill. F'rinstance...if the Twins decide to put Santana on the block...Garland gets bumped down a few notches and the Sox won't get that good of a return. But, if Garland is the best pitcher available via trade, then his value goes up...not to Santana level, but higher than before. Garland has lots of things going for him. Young. Durable (so far). Post season experience. Occasional dominating stuff. Those kinda things mean a lot to GM's.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 09:01 AM) Was it the capacitors? Were they "fluxing?"

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 02:13 PM) The NFL isn't considered a niche, but the NFL Network is. If a ton of NFL games were on the NFL Network, I'd bet it wouldn't be in a sports package. Also, I'll take your bet. Standard home shopping network programming vs Illinois/Wisconsin basketball in February. Please. If BTN brings the price down, in my opinion the viewership would be enough to validate putting it on basic cable. If they want to simply use the argument that 'non fans' shouldn't have to pay for it, then every one of us should be able to customize our cable package. I could live on about 20 channels. Furthermore, why should 'fans' have to pay much extra for channels in a sports package they don't want? These things go both ways. I think he's talking about the big Penn State/Northwestern basketball tussles. Or Minnesota-Indiana in football. Not that either of those games won't have fans...but those will balance out the big time matchups.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) Yeah, that's all plausible and makes sense. Nobody's denying that the NL is a much better place to pitch in. But let's not pretend that Jon Garland would go from league averageish to Brandon Webb and that teams are going to be chomping at the bits for him. Why not? If a team thinks it's one pitcher away...you never know. Even in the NL, Garland is probably a 3rd starter. On a team that thinks they have a chance, he's a 3 or a 4. But, he's durable (he's complained about this knot before, so I don't put too much stock in it)...he's won 18 games back to back seasons...and he's got postseason experience. I'm sorry Pratt, but the Sox could EASILY get more for Garland than the Rockies got for Jennings. It depends on Kenny...if he's patient, he'll get the package he wants. If he doesn't start screaming, "Look at the cool shiny red ball!!! I want it!!! I want it!!!" then the Sox will get less of a package.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 05:12 PM) I hear what you're saying, but Owens didn't look ready to make the jump either. I'm not saying he's going gang busters in the bigs, but he's definitely figuring it out. I guess I'd just like Ryan to get that same shot, despite his performance in AAA. But you're right, if he can bounce back and have a good spring, then he'll improve his chances. He didn't look ready, but he has what Ozzie wants...speed. Sweeney is above average and BA...well, I won't even go there. With Pods being worthless and Erstad on the grinder dl...(I know he isn't fast, but he's smart on the basepaths)...Owens was all we had. So, he's gotten a long look. Plus, everyone and their mother knows that Pods won't be ont he Sox next year...so why not look at his possible replacement?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) Buehrle and Garland don't have enough torque to hurt their arms? Ha! Sure, they aren't throwing Felix Hernandez' slider, but their arms can go same as anyone's. Buehrle doesn't throw anything with enough force...look at his innings pitched! Garland has a better chance, but neither one has a monster curve, or a biting slider. A "knot" sounds more like a flexibility issue than a surgery issue. Although I'm not a doctor, so don't take me at my word.

As for the arms...Buehrle and Garland don't have enough torque on their pitches to screw up their arms. Vazquez is the only one that MAY...I repeat...MAY have arm trouble, but probably not. We have a good amount of pitchers that are serviceable coming through the system. But remember, Buehrle is our ace...and he was a 38th round pick. Look, there are going to be your low pick, high reward guys like Buehrle and Piazza (51st round pick, IIRC). And you are going to have your busts...Gavin Floyd anyone? Or the Mets pitchers of the early 90's, Wilson, Van Poppel and I think Isringhausen. Like Poplar said, baseball is up and down...the Tigers just a few years ago, were the absolute worst team in baseball...BY FAR. Now, not so much. The White Sox need to do something about the instruction and the scouting, but I agree with Poplar that things can change, in a hurry. And I'd much rather have my team say, "We are going to retool and do our best to win NOW," than, "We are going to rebuild, enjoy these kids playing, but we are going to suck for a few years."

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 19, 2007 -> 11:25 PM) Early, early, early 2008 top 16 classes from rivals: http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/con....asp?CID=703090 What...no Illinois???

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 19, 2007 -> 08:53 AM) no, it would not be awesome to have him patrol CF for us. Everyone is talking about Rowand's career year, Hunter is having a career year like no other. Plus, Hunter is old and isn't the defender he was 3-5 years ago. The Metrodome has taken a toll on his body and he has slowed down considerably. Others have mentioned this, and he plays probably the deepest CF in baseball as well. Hunter would not live up to the huge Gary Matthews-like contract he would get. Playing 81 games on grass instead of 81 games on turf will elongate his career. Yes, he is older, but he is still better than Rowand. BY FAR.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 08:11 PM) A few of my thoughts from reading over through this thread: 1. Thome will be back. I say there's a .1 chance of him not coming back. 2. Crede will be non-tendered. I don't see KW risking that 3-4 million on Crede when we have a) 3B filled and B) other holes 3. If we really need a speedy guy to leadoff and play LF, please be Owens. Cheaper, younger, and arguably better then Erstad and Podsednik. Neither of the grinder duo should be back. 4. Contreras needs to be traded. 5. Garland, maybe. If Garland AND Contreras are traded, we better get back a young proven major league arm. Or a VERY HIGH upside, less than a year away major league arm. Like a Jason Hirsh.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 07:59 PM) What does Jerry do well outside of 'run fast'? I know he's been amazing since being recalled in early July . . . 39 G | 156 AB | 19 R | 49 H | 2 2B | 1 3B | 1 HR | 7 RBI | 8 BB | 27 K | 14SB/3CS | .269/.313/.314/.627 and even better since July 19th (beginning of the BOS series) . . . 25 G | 106 AB | 8 R | 26 H | 2 2B | 1 3B | 1 HR | 4 RBI | 4 BB | 19 K | 9SB/0CS | .245/.279/.311/.590 but can't this team do better than a dirt poor, barely breathing (possibly dead) man's Nook Logan in the leadoff spot next year? It's pretty obvious the organization wants to go for it again in 2008. With a group of aging (but still quite good) veterans leading the way, this team is going to need a productive leadoff hitter if they want to win anything. I can't see Jerry Owens posting anything better than a .260/.295/.315/.610 (this is on the optimistic side) line in 500+ ABs next year and that's not going to get it done. I just don't think he's all that talented. Giving up pretty easy, eh? He has improved, just like Fields has improved. You could be right, of course, but they have to have SOME cheaper position players. Fields is one, Richar is another. Would that be enough? If you got, let's say, Hunter? How about this (although I'm sure it's a longshot)? LF Owens CF Hunter RF Dye 1B Konerko 2B Richar 3B Fields SS ??? C Pierzynski DH Thome Bench Erstad, Ozuna, Hall, Gonzalez, Sweeney/Anderson SP Buehrle, Garland Vazquez, Danks, Current AA/AAA pitcher RP Wasserman, Logan, Thornton, Jenks, Aardsma, FA veteran I think that's pretty good.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) I know I can't; how 'bout you? Suuuure I can... ...not all at once, though.

If Biggio was cool at all...we would wear Bagwell's number those last three days since his career was cut short by injury and he didn't get the big sendoff that he deserved as a main member of the Killer B's.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) I also rule in favor of strippers in employment cases. Just employment cases???

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 08:55 AM) You will probably be very surprised by this, but here it goes. I am actually not against giving homosexuals the same rights and considerations that heterosexual couples receive from a government marriage or civil union. What I am against is my church blessing that as a Christian marriage since I do not see it as fulfilling what God had ordained. I would say that there are many Christians not making the distinction between the government they live under and the rights provided by it and the church's power that they live under. After saying this, we are told to live under the laws of the land we live in, and we need to respect those around us. I see church ordained marriage as different from state marriage. One is a religious thing, the other is not. As such I do not see why we should be pushing those beliefs on the state. Something such as stealing though (as an example), is not a religious thing that is separate from the state. If we see that not being addressed, we do need to push on that. I agree with Rex on this, but I have to say that, personally, I disagree with you on the civil vs. ordained marriage. I understand what you are saying, but to me, I'm not saying "I do" in front of God, a minister or a judge (and I've been married twice, once by a judge and once by a minister, and yes, I am Jewish, but my wife isn't and her stepfather is a UCC minister and was kind enough to marry us)...I'm saying "I do" to the person that I am marrying. To me, that is the most important person in the universe and beyond at that particular time. I don't give a hoot if God says ok. I don't give a hoot about my marriage license from the state. Those are both formalities, in my eyes. And I think that is a major part of this issue, is that people forget that marriage, or any union for that matter, isn't about what God thinks, the state thinks, it's about the two people actually uniting. When people can think about that and that LOVE is the most important thing in any marriage, maybe this issue will subside.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 04:27 PM) Please. Didn't we all learn when we were two years old that words can never hurt us? She's an unknown woman’s basketball player. She has no reputation to damage. This is a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit and I hope the court comes down on this lawyer for filing such garbage. "You called me a s***head. My head is neither made of, or full of s***, therefore, I shall sue you on the grounds that other people see me as something that we already know I'm not. And honestly, if they do, why should that bother me.... oops, HAVE THAT STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD!!!" In other words, what you said, Jenks.

Yeah, but this shows what kind of a coach Weber is...he either doesn't want to get burned again (which I can understand) OR he wants his teams to stand on their merit and not drooling over a high-schooler (or 7th grader, for that matter). I never saw him as a touchy-feely guy and I think that is hurting him right now. I wonder if he's too much like Gene Keady? Thanks for that greasy!

QUOTE(whitesox61382 @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 03:46 PM) In regards to the SS hole, what about Cabrera from LAA? I know that the Angels have tried to move him in the past and probably wouldn't ask for too much if the Sox were willing to pay all/most of his remaining contract. I think he would work perfect in the #2 hole and could possible leadoff if needed. He is usually good for a .270-.280 average(.306 this year), he has decent gap power(.400 SLG), he has solid plate discipline(doesn't draw many walks but has never SO more than 64 times in a season), he runs well(usually good for about 20SB at an 80% clip), and he is still above average defensively. Renteria is another option and would be an upgrade over Cabrera, but would cost more in a trade. I would be willing to take a chance on Greene(if the asking price isn't too high) and hope that a move to a great hitters park would really benefit him(based on his home/away splits that would be the case). If the Sox could get a .270/20-25/75-85 .330/.470/.800 stat line from Greene, than I would be happy. Although that would mean the Sox would have to fill the leadoff spot from one of the outfield positions(possible Owens if he can continue to hit .280+ and draw a few more walks). Anthrax???

So instead of ripping on Weber for his misses...which up until now I didn't want to do...I wanted to ask a question to the board... Does anyone know why Weber is losing these guys? Is he not a good closer? Is he being too honest? Meaning, he won't promise playing time or is trying to be clean and not offering "other" things? Or is it just a string of bad luck?

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) You think the Sox plan 5 years in advance? I don't. And based on their history with Crede, it appears Boras isn't an issue for them in the early years. I do...I think they cringe every time they hear his name. I understand what both of you are saying, but I think they would like to minimize the Boras contact, even with Rich Hahn doing most of the communicating with the Boras camp. I think dealing with him once is tolerable, twice is doable for the greater good, but 3+ is probably pushing it. UNLESS, they are trying to change their ways.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) Abreu is about 5 years away from free agency much like another Boras client the Sox traded for this past offseason, John Danks. But, do you think they would have Crede (if resigned), Danks AND Abreu? I'm just not sure about that. And I think that Danks was a power play to get Jordan in the fold again (hopefully, if he's available when the Sox draft). If, and this is a BIG IF, Danks and Abreu are breakout stars, you think the Sox are going to want to deal with them going to FA in 5 years? I don't.